[Advaita-l] Why brahma jnAna is capable of sarva nivritti

[Anand Hudli]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l
< advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l
>> < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> <<stuff deleted>>
>>
>> Why don't you study the examples mentioned in the 9th chapter of
>> PanchadashI and get back with questions or doubts? It seems you are
having
>> trouble understanding the basics of saMvAdi and visaMvAdi bhramas.
>
>
> It is not trouble in understanding, but the concept itself is
contradiction
> in terms.
>
> Setting aside the examples, let's come to the context in which this
example
> was quoted. From your initial posting it seems MS is implying even though
> shruti is mithya (bhramAtmaka) but advaita  jnyAna araising from it can
> survive because it is samvAdi to vastustithi in pArmArthika. If this is my
> correct understanding, then I have a question --
>
> How do anyone is certain this jagat-bhramA is that of samvAdi type? Until
a
> given bhramA is get over, one cannot tell it is saMvAdi or asaMvAdi type.
> So also until this jagat-bhrama is over, one cannot tell for sure. You
> cannot argue this is saMvAdi because shruti says so; for shruti themselves
> are bhramAtmaka. Just as asaMvAdi bhramA viShya, what shruti telling may
> not be true ate the end.
>
> So, even if one accepts the concept of saMvAdi-asaMvAdi types, the issue
> about shruti is still not addressed. Any pointer from siddhi is
appreciated.


It is through the examples that the concept emerges, not the other way
round. If the examples make sense, so should the concept. In a
saMvAdi-bhrama, there has to be a bhrama component, else it would not
qualify to be a  bhrama. In addition, the desired/anticipated result,
phala, should not be sublated after the bhrama ends. For example, in the
typical silver-shell illusion, the desired result during the illusion is
silver. But the silver gets sublated upon termination of the illusion. So
this is not a saMvAdi bhrama.

Your other question has to do with the validity of shruti itself. While all
pramANas lose their status in the pAramArthika level, they are considered
to be valid in the vyAvahArika level. So the shruti too has to be accepted
as valid, infallible, without a defect, and capable of yielding the desired
result as stated in the shruti itself. This also means we have to accept
the bhramas associated with shruti, including upAsanas, etc., as
saMvAdi-bhramas.

Madhusudana has quoted Sureshvara's vArtika: ato avabodhakatvena
duShTakAraNavarjanAt| abAdhAcca pramANatvaM vastunyakShAdivat shruteH| Just
as Perception, etc are considered to be valid (in vyvahAra) due to their
making something unknown known (ajnAta-jnApaka), being free of defects, and
not being sublated (in vyavahAra), so too the shruti is a pramANa (for
brahma-jnAna).

Anand


On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l
> < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> <<stuff deleted>>
>
> Why don't you study the examples mentioned in the 9th chapter of
> PanchadashI and get back with questions or doubts? It seems you are having
> trouble understanding the basics of saMvAdi and visaMvAdi bhramas. Besides,
> there are others in this list who are knowledgeable about the material in
> the PanchadashI. Just note that the PanchadashI asserts that there are
> crores of examples for saMvAdi-bhrama, involving pratyakSha, anumAna, and
> shAstra, which means this type of bhrama is quite common.
> (pratyakShasya-anumAnasya tathA shAstrasya gochare| uktanyAyena
> saMvAdibhramAH santi hi koTishaH||)
>
> Anand
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l
>> < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Let me clarify the example of the gem and the lamp. There are two
>> rooms, A
>> >> and B. Room A contains a gem alone, and room B contains a lamp alone.
>> Light
>> >> emanates from both the rooms, ie. light from the gem in A and light
>> from
>> >> the lamp in B. Two persons, P1 and P2 are standing outside the two
>> rooms,
>> >> which are themselves some distance apart so that P1 is somewhere near
>> A and
>> >> P2 is near B.  Person P1 sees the light from room A only (not from B)
>> and
>> >> runs after it thinking it is coming from a gem. Person P2 see the light
>> >> from room B only (not from A) and runs after it, also thinking it is
>> coming
>> >> from a gem. However, P1 does succeed in finding the gem in room A,
>> >
>> > whereas P2 finds no gem but a lamp in room B. We say person P1
>> experienced
>> >> a saMvAdi-bhrama (P1 found the desired object), while person P2
>> experienced
>> >> a visaMvAdibhrama (P2 did not find the desired object).
>> >>
>> >>
>> > If room A is now said to be containing only gem (and no lamp), and the
>> > light is said to be coming from the gem only; then why would anyone call
>> > the first case is bhramA? It is quite yathArtha only -- for it is based
>> on
>> > hEtu (seeing light) and finding the sAdya (the gem). samvAdi-bhrama is
>> > contradiction in terms. If the initial jnAna is later found to be
>> samvAdi
>> > to vastusthiti, it is not a bhrama at all. In Western language, it is
>> > validity by correspondence.
>> Further clarification is required. Person P1 mistakes the light from room
>> A to be the gem itself. In other words, he superimposes the gem on the
>> light emitted by the gem. This is quite possible if the gem is at a
>> distance and location of the gem is not easily grasped. So here the bhrama
>> is the superimposition of the gem on its light. yathA maNiprabhAM dRShTvA
>> maNibhrameNa pravRtto jano maNiM labhate eva, ato maNiprabhAyAM
>> maNibuddhirUpo bhramaH saMvAdI bhavati. The bhrama viShaya is the gem and
>> it is not sublated after the bhrama ends.
>>
>> If this is still hard to understand, the PanchadashI, chapter 9 provides
>> plenty of examples of saMvAdi-bhrama. Also, Shri Yogendranath Bagchi in his
>> bAlabodhinI Sanskrit commentary on the advaitasiddhi provides a good
>> example. dhUlipaTale dhUmabhramAt daivagatyA vahnimati
>> jAyamAna-vahni-anumitau vyabhicArAt yaj-jnAnaM bhramajanyaM
>> tadbAdhitArthakamiti vyApteratraiva vyabhicArAditi bhAvaH|
>> Upon seeing a film of dust, one may mistakenly think it is smoke and
>> infer the presence of fire (by the inference rule "where there is smoke
>> there is fire" or the vyApti relation between fire and smoke). However, due
>> to luck, there may actually be fire in the place where it is expected. This
>> is an exception to the (proposed) rule that an object of illusion is
>> sublated. Hence, there is no rule that the object of illusion is sublated
>> (ie. there is no rule that there is viShaya-bAdha due to bhramajanyatva).
>> Note here that the (saMvAdi) bhrama consists of superimposing smoke on dust
>> *and* inferring fire due to the presence of smoke. The bhrama viShaya is
>> fire and it is not sublated even after the bhrama ends.
>>
>> Further examples are found in the PanchadashI as noted above. One may
>> sprinkle on oneself the water of GodAvari thinking it is Gangodaka and get
>> purified. In this case, the saMvAdi-bhrama is thinking Godavari water is
>> Ganga water *and* using Agama texts to conclude that purification will
>> result from sprinkling Ganga water upon oneself. However, one does achieve
>> the desired result of purification, since there are Agama statements that
>> uphold purification from Godavari water too. godAvaryudakasyApi
>> vishuddhikAraNamAgamaprasiddham.
>>
>> This is the essence of Madhusudana's statement bhramajanyatvasya
>> viShayabAdha-aprayojakatvAcca.
>>
>> Anand
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l
>>> < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> > A small typo is regretted;
>>> >
>>> > Please read para;
>>> >
>>> > "This is samvAdi-bhrama, for the vishaya of bhrama i.e gem, is not the
>>> > adhisTAna of bhrama, but the lamp is. Although gem do exist in the room
>>> > nevertheless it is not the adhistAna of the bhramA. Presense of gem is
>>> just
>>> > kaakatALia."
>>> >
>>> > as
>>> >
>>> > This is **not** samvAdi-bhrama, for the vishaya of bhrama i.e gem, is
>>> not
>>> > the adhisTAna of bhrama, but the lamp is. Although gem do exist in the
>>> room
>>> > nevertheless it is not the adhistAna of the bhramA. Presense of gem is
>>> just
>>> > kaakatALia.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, you have succeeded in creating a bhrama where the adhyasta
>>> (superimposed) is an objection and the adhisThAna is a misunderstanding!!
>>> It looks like an objection (snake), but upon examination it turns out to be
>>> a misunderstanding (rope). And this is a case of visaMvAdi-bhrama!
>>>
>>> Let me clarify the example of the gem and the lamp. There are two rooms,
>>> A and B. Room A contains a gem alone, and room B contains a lamp alone.
>>> Light emanates from both the rooms, ie. light from the gem in A and light
>>> from the lamp in B. Two persons, P1 and P2 are standing outside the
>>> two rooms, which are themselves some distance apart so that P1 is somewhere
>>> near A and P2 is near B.  Person P1 sees the light from room A only (not
>>> from B) and runs after it thinking it is coming from a gem. Person P2 see
>>> the light from room B only (not from A) and runs after it, also thinking it
>>> is coming from a gem. However, P1 does succeed in finding the gem in room
>>> A, whereas P2 finds no gem but a lamp in room B. We say person P1
>>> experienced a saMvAdi-bhrama (P1 found the desired object), while person P2
>>> experienced a visaMvAdibhrama (P2 did not find the desired object).
>>>
>>> Anand
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice presentation by Shri Venkatraghavan. I would like to add a couple
>>>> of points here.
>>>>
>>>> As rightly pointed out, the concept of sAkShI is different in dvaita
>>>> vis-à-vis advaita. While advaitins hold sAkShI to be
>>>> avidyAvRtti-pratibimbita-caitanyam, i.e. Consciousness reflected in
>>>> avidyAvRtti, for dvaitins, sAkShI is, as per the nyAyAkosha-kAra's
>>>> definition based on the pramANa-candrikA, Atma-svarUpa-jnAnAdi-vyanjakatvam,
>>>> i.e that which reveals the nature of Atman, its properties, cognition, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The thrust of Madhusudana's argument towards the later part of the
>>>> article is to establish that brahma-jnAna is not sublated, although he
>>>> argued for sarva-nivRtti earlier. This is necessary because the dvaitin can
>>>> and does argue that brahma-jnAna arising from shruti is also sublated. This
>>>> objection can be met with using two approaches. First, taking the
>>>> vyavahArika view, shruti is infallible and without any defect (doSha). It
>>>> augments other pramANas such as perception and inference, and makes known
>>>> what is not known through them, without contradicting them. That is why he
>>>> says, "advaita-tAtparya-grahasya ca pratyakShAdyavirodhena pramArUpatayA
>>>> doShatva-abhAvAt na tajjanyamadvaitajnAnaM bAdhyam. However, the dvaitin
>>>> can still argue that shruti itself is bhramAtmaka according to the
>>>> advaitin. Here, Madhusudana only implicitly refers to what is called
>>>> samvAdi-bhrama, for example in the PanchadashI 9.1 and 9.2. A person
>>>> perceiving the light emanating from a room containing a gem, think it is
>>>> the gem itself and runs after it and does, in fact, find the gem. Another
>>>> person perceiving light emanating from another room containing a lamp also
>>>> thinks it is a gem and runs after it, only to discover there is no gem. The
>>>> first is a case of samvAdi-bhrama, whereas the second is a case of
>>>> visaMvAdi-bhrama. In the first case, there is doSha-janyatva, arising from
>>>> a defect, but there is no viShaya-bAdha, negation of the object (gem).
>>>> Hence, it is not correct to say that doSha-janyatva or
>>>> bhrama-janyatva determines viShaya-bAdha. bhrama-janyatvasya
>>>> viShayabAdha-aprayojakatvAcca, says Madhusudana.
>>>>
>>>> Anand
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>